Official NH Primary Results Thread
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
Stoney Mason
Banned
Blader5489 said:
Yes. Quite serious since based on his posting record I assume he stands against virtually everything Obama proposes. Seems nonsensical to me but we seem to have hatched it out fine thank you very much.
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
I can easily see Hillary/Richardson as the Dem ticket
Obama would need somebody with foreign policy experience and just experience overall (a Dick Cheney-like figure without the baggage). Someone that wouldn't overshadow Barack, but add 'gravitas' to the ticket.
Obama would need somebody with foreign policy experience and just experience overall (a Dick Cheney-like figure without the baggage). Someone that wouldn't overshadow Barack, but add 'gravitas' to the ticket.
Grecco said:
No chance in hell she selects Obama as her running mate. History says she'll need a seasoned governor. Or at least someone she doesn't hate with all her being. Probably Richardson. I think if polling indicates he'd give her Ohio, Ted Strickland's name gets thrown around a lot.
Aulatori said:
It's an issue, though. I'd have to look it up, but Senators do badly enough when they run for president. The wisdom of the pundit crowd is that a senator-senator ticket is even more foolhardy. I think either of them needs to pick a governor, and in the case of Obama, he probably needs an older more visible one.
AndersTheSwede
Member
Juice said:
I respect McCain, but I would still vote for Hillary over him, videogame hater that she is regardless.
Stoney Mason said:
If you think Hillary is trustworthy and has a good heart I should probably stop typing right now. Truth is that a president has very little to do with how things in a country run. They don't do anything about the economy. Best they can do is cut taxes. Whatever view you hold on abortion it ain't changing. The war in Iraq is coming to an end no matter who is in the white house. We need someone who will tell it like it is and inspire people. Hillary is surely not that person. I honestly don't see why anyone would choose to vote for Hillary in the Dem promary. I understand the general but the primaries just baffles me.
Good luck with your Hillary campaigning Stoney.
HylianTom said:
Well since Reagan, liberals have said that Republican presidents will stack the Supreme Court with justices that will overturn Roe v Wade, make gay marriage illegal, etc etc.
Republicans have held the presidency for 20 out of the last 28 years and there is still no change in these issues.
Stoney Mason said:
I was just confused because you seem to invest so much of your time talking about (i.e. criticizing) conservatives despite being largely opposed to them, a behavior that you just described as nonsensical. So you can understand why I raised an eyebrow at your initial comment.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cooter said:
Oh I couldn't disagree more with the bolded part. As far as the other part, I'm liberal and have liberal values. Unless the parties change, I'll be supporting the democratic candidate no matter. I have no problem with Obama being that candidate. As I have said many time before I like Obama. I just don't feel the need to tear down another candidate to build up my candidate.
ToxicAdam said:
I think the fallacy in the fears publicized by the left is that republicans have largely nominated precedent-respecting, relatively anti-activist judges as opposed to activists with conservative agendas. There are few legal eagles out there as potential nominees who are simultaneously social conservatives and willing to defecate on precedent to get it done.
That's not to say the court hasn't broken with many, many precedents in the last 28 years, but it's definitely the case that they haven't really established a judicial agenda to enact social changes in the country the way the Burger/Warren courts did.
ToxicAdam said:
True, we've gotten lucky in that Bush I and Reagan apparently misjudged their appointments (Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor most notably). But I don't trust them to screw-up anymore.
When the position I'm essentially voting for is a potential three- or four-decade-long job, I don't find it very wise to take chances.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Blader5489 said:
I almost never criticize conservatives on here for just being conservative. I quite like Jaydubya and Siamese Dreamer, and Toxic Adam as posters for example and I completely disagree with them on nearly everything politically (There are a few especially nasty conservatives who I don't really like and go after but those guys are generally fairly crazy and on the extreme). I try to attack people on specific issues. Like gay marriage. This dumb ass war, etc. Outside of maybe APF I try not to break this rule.
PhoenixDark
Banned
lol @ the group think meltdowns.
I posted an article days ago which argued that all polls right after the Iowa caucus would be meaningless due to the small amount of time to get accurate results; no one listened.
The media built Obama up as this unstoppable "iconic" savior, and you guys drank the kool-aid. Shame on you. Obama has no message outside of vague catch phrases and slogans. That may appeal to some people, but it wasn't hard to see that eventually his inability to articulate details would hurt him. He failed to do it at the debates, he doesn't do it at stump speeches, etc. While Hillary is indeed an annoying candidate - and I can't stand her - at least she is running a campaign based on policy, not just dreams.
The race is not "doomed" or all over. Obama could still win Nevada, depending on who gets the big union endorsement tomorrow. He could win SC, although I wouldn't place much stock in this idea that black voters are going to part the red sea and carry Obama to some epic victory. Hillary is going to win Michigan by default, and you can thank our shitty governess for that.
I posted an article days ago which argued that all polls right after the Iowa caucus would be meaningless due to the small amount of time to get accurate results; no one listened.
The media built Obama up as this unstoppable "iconic" savior, and you guys drank the kool-aid. Shame on you. Obama has no message outside of vague catch phrases and slogans. That may appeal to some people, but it wasn't hard to see that eventually his inability to articulate details would hurt him. He failed to do it at the debates, he doesn't do it at stump speeches, etc. While Hillary is indeed an annoying candidate - and I can't stand her - at least she is running a campaign based on policy, not just dreams.
The race is not "doomed" or all over. Obama could still win Nevada, depending on who gets the big union endorsement tomorrow. He could win SC, although I wouldn't place much stock in this idea that black voters are going to part the red sea and carry Obama to some epic victory. Hillary is going to win Michigan by default, and you can thank our shitty governess for that.
I love Obama and wrote in McCain in 2004 on my ballot. I'd rather have someone that seems competent in office than anything else. Clinton is definitely competent but also dangerously power-hungry and I get nervous when I see people spaz for things with so much firepower attatched to it.Juice said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Stoney Mason said:http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197579&highlight=michigan
Well they weren't supposed to be on the ballot but a couple of candidates are.
That's because:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=211489
Mercury Fred
Banned
I wonder if Clinton and Obama could bury the hatchet to the degree that a Clinton/ Obama ticket could happen if she gets the nomination. Subquestion: would Obama in the VP slot sway any Hillary haters?
I hope so.Mercury Fred said:
The last thing I want to see happen is people getting so turned off by Hillary that they stay home and give the White House to the GOP for at least yet another four years. NOTHING is worse than that. Even keeping the dynasty tradition, as disgusting as it is, would be better.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cloudy said:
GAF says Hilary cried so women with their flighty natures, low intelligence, lack of testosterone, and feminist handbooks stormed the voting booths. They should stay barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen!
or something like that.
Cloudy said:
Three reasons that poll probably killed Obama:
1. NH doesn't want to be told who they're going to vote for. Some independents probably just said "F U."
2. Independents wanting to avoid an unsavory republican nominee decided to actually vote for McCain in the republican aisle since it appeared that Obama had it locked up (some polls had a 13 point lead... jesus)
3. Some independents who were probably honestly on the fence between the two parties when polled, listed support among the democratic parties in Obama. Some democratic pollsters only ask their side of the equation, and if the questions read "would you vote in the democratic primary?" and "who for?", some republican-voting independents may have responded to the poll anyway.
Grecco said:
The idea of Obama being VP instantly brings up a certain joke from Chris Rock (?).
And between McCain and Hillary, I'd have to go McCain. I'm not happy with some of the decisions he's made in the last few years, but he seems like a genuine, real human being, opposed to Hillary.
topsyturvy
Member
ummm, richardson as a vice president is not possible at all. like edwards and cheney of previous elections, the vice president ticket need to have the power to carry the states that the president ticket can't.Juice said:
A democratic ticket can own everything imaginable except the south simply because neither democratic runner is capable of grabbing that anyway. Thats why a hillary/obama ticket would be so decisive.
Oh well. The race isn't over for Obama, but his momentum is seriously stunted. I hope this loss, which was actually pretty narrow, doesn't discourage the SC voters or those elsewhere from voting for Obama in the coming election. If not, I hope Clinton can run a successful campaign against the Republican candidate, whoever he may be.
topsyturvy said:
All of the pundits and Hillary insiders seem pretty intent in declaring that the Clintons at this point hate the very soul of Obama. I can't see her on a personal level humbling herself by asking him to be the running mate, should it come down to it.
If the personal rift is as vast as it's portrayed, it would almost feel like the good ol' days where the runner-up was ceremoniously granted the position. It'd be like Andrew Jackson / Calhoun. Hilarity would certainly ensue.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
:lol after all that they both got the same number of delegates, and obama got one extra superdelegate.
quadriplegicjon said:
It's my opinion that Iowa and New Hampshire's insanely influential position in the primary process far outweighs the material delegates they have to offer. Each state could have literally zero delegates and it wouldn't change anything. The momentum that comes out of a big win or loss in either contest makes the actual issue of delegate-getting pale in comparison. Accruing delegates is for the big states, after the contest has already been largely decided in most cycles.
HylianTom said:
NO. They didn't screw up, they elected people they thought would get past a Democratic congress and do a respectable job. They didn't go strictly after candidates bases on a litmus test issue.
Quit falling for the bullshit. History has clearly proven it wrong.
^^ This is the exact same mantra I have heard since I have been following politics since 1992. Bullshit then, bullshit now.
The Clarence Thomas nomination was supposed to be that mythical "tipping point". It's why the Dems paraded out all of those allegations in an attempt to stop his appointment. Roe v Wade still stands ... and will always stand.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Juice said:
dont ruin my party.
speculawyer
Member
The videogame hate stuff is just pathetic pandering for conservative votes. She would never ban anything . . . at most she would do something to make sure the ratings are enforced better. (i.e. Fine stores that sell 'M' rated game to kids under 17.) It is not something I really worry about.Subarushian said:
topsyturvy
Member
john kerry and john edwards had fallouts in their respectful debates. They even resorted to personal attacks.Juice said:
in other words, something tells me if hillary and or obama offer each other a vp gig, they won't pass it up for shit. Lets face it, edwards and richardson isn't perceived as a knockout punch like those two.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Juice said:
Well of course. A lot of people (myself included) hate the primary process because it frontloads relatively small, and relatively non-proportional states when you look at demographics. To have primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and let them carry so much media weight is insane but that's what "tradition" will do for ya. That's why suddenly declaring Obama the candidate after winning IOWA and people happy to see that just struck me as insane.
topsyturvy
Member
if he fallout now, those votes would go both ways.....theBishop said:
if hillary was a republican, she would've won in iowa and NH
if obama was a dem, he would've won in both states also.
in other words, these two candidates are very strong. I don't remember an election when 2 juggernauts battled in the same party. :/
QFT
This is the exact attitude that the millions of independant swing voters in the general share. Hillary will top out at around 45-46% max in the general. She just can't overcome the negatives that she's had for almost 2 decades now. People know her and what she's about and just don't like it. Dems made a huge mistake tonight in NH if she goes onto get the nomination. Mark my words.
ToxicAdam said:
So I'm supposed to just trust the next GOP president and hope that he/she appoints justices that I find palatable? Knowing that there's a damn good chance that they could very well put people up who will vote against me on issues near and dear to me for the next three decades of my life? Really? Really?
Bullshit.
I didn't trust Bush II on this (and have thus far been soundly vindicated), and I see no reason to trust any of the current GOP bunch running. Two (maybe three) thirty-year terms on the bench - NOT a gamble I'm willing to take. Do you understand the weight of such a gamble? Do you get it?
{Edit: In light of TA's obvious insanity (Roe v Wade, etc), no I don't think he gets it. All that wasted cyber-breath.. nothing to see here, folks..}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_MiersToxicAdam said:
Okay, well I was ten years old when Thomas went in, so I can't speak with any depth about whatever expectations were there when he went in. Unless I read a lot of old newpapers or something. Which isn't happening. But, it's not really the point either.
Regardless, Bush I is not Bush II, and Roberts/Alito/Thomas are not Souter. Of course the tipping point never happened, because the next two nominees were Clinton's. You can't make a point about continuity if there's an eight year cap in the middle.
Are you going to deny that Kennedy is pretty much the deciding vote on everything right now?
It's much less of a deal now that Democrats control Congress again. I don't think Roe will go down, but I'm not confident enough to say "never" I am confident enough to say that if it doesn't fall, it won't be for lack of trying.
Hellsing321
Member
I'm late but, FUCKING NH!
When will people learn?! Democracy just doesn't work.
When will people learn?! Democracy just doesn't work.
courage201
Member
Hillary = the comebackkid
Very reminiscent of the first clinton white house bid.
Very reminiscent of the first clinton white house bid.
speculawyer
Member
There have been changes . . .ToxicAdam said:
But some people think that even the Supreme court conservatives are very hesitant to overturn Roe. v. Wade:
1) It would remove an issue that keeps religious issues voting for GOP candidates like rats hitting a bar for food pellet.
2) It might cause a huge anti-GOP backlash that would make 2006 look like a GOP victory.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Honestly I think women voters just couldn't take the thought of sending Hillary home crying.
- Status